An excellent concise and accurate statement of the interactive dualism theory of mind

Valmar,

I do now think that our exchange has reached the point of diminishing returns in which it will only become tedious and repetitive from here on, so I'll simply make a couple of final(ish) points:

Firstly, I think the main mistake (from my perspective) that you make is to confuse experience of with experience as.

The boundary between these can be clear to non-existent, depending on a range of circumstances. Sometimes, there's simply no meaningful distance, except to create an artificial distinction. Which implies that it is a semantic problem.

How do we properly demarcate between definitions of the two when it can be so subjective in various cases?

The distinction is clearer in some scenarios than in others. For example, the experience of the computer screen in front of us is obviously not an experience as the computer screen in front of us.

Obviously not. But it is clear when talking about the physical body we inhabit, the mental contents that we have. In dreams, we can get lost in identifying with the dream and its contents.

On psychedelics like Salvia Divinorum, the user can experience all sorts of strangeness ~ such as literally feeling like a computer screen. One user reporting a trip where they fully experienced being an entire house, including the family inhabiting it. It is nothing short of entirely bizarre, that such experiences are possible. But it is one of the few psychedelics capable of such incredibly strange experiences that defy expectation.

It's slightly less clear in the case of our bodies, but we know that we can exist in the absence of our bodies, so clearly the experience of our bodies is not an experience as our bodies.

Yes, but while we are incarnate, we do experience as our bodies, because mind and body are so attuned. That is why Physicalists and Materialists are so convinced that this is the case ~ because they have experienced nothing that convinces them that they're not just a hunk of apparently animated meat talking to itself.

My contention is that this extends to all experience. You say, for example, that you have experienced your mind expanding, and you interpret this as an experience as your mind expanding. I say in turn that you are not justified in drawing that inference, and that all that can safely be said is that it was an experience of your mind expanding.

A needless division. It is what I literally experienced in the moment ~ my mind did expand beyond the ego. It was both an experience as being my mind that was expanding, because in that state, you are literally that. There is no distinction that can be made. Psychedelics can cause some very odd stuff to occur to the mind that would never happen soberly.

No experience of is an experience as because the experiencer cannot "touch" themself, just as the tip of the finger cannot touch itself.

The Experiencer proper is different ~ but the Experiencer's identity becomes entirely wrapped up in the mental contents it does identity with and as that there is effectively not a single difference.

What makes me me, and not something else? I am the one to set those boundaries. Psychedelics expand me beyond the body, and allow me to have some wildly different perspectives.

During one journey, I had left my body behind, only to be beckoned back, to perceive my ego lost in complete brokenness, lost in thought-loops and madness. The me beyond the body took pity and compassion on ego-me, and rejoined that, to the wake on the floor, feeling that same madness that was thankfully washed away by spiritual energy.

So... what is the limit of what the Experiencer is? Does touching the minds of my parallel selves count, through whatever bridge my soul allows?

Secondly, and relatedly:


Because, presumably, the dream reality is merely one of subjective experience, and a subjective experience with respect to a perceived "outer" reality has some unique perspective on it. Therefore, if there is to be more than one percipient of the dream reality, there needs to be a way to translate it into an appropriate perspective for each percipient.

You're confusing yourself with this line of logic.

There is nothing that logically prevents a mind from creating a dreamscape within itself, and then outside entities being allowed to enter into the dreamscape, perceiving through avatars composed of dreamstuff ~ they're perceiving the dreamscape through whatever the avatar provides.

At a spiritual level, there is also logically nothing that prevents souls from creating an entire reality outside of itself, which other souls can then enter.

There have been some supposed reports of some people who have manifested objects with their minds, but evidence is rare and scarce, sadly. So... it seems possible.

This capability to manifest extends easily into dreams proper. Matter is just generally too defined to easily influence or manifest.

I'm not sure what you consider a dream reality to be if not a subjective experience.

Yes, but that doesn't mean others cannot enter it if you allow them to.

Have you never heard of any examples of others appearing in people's dreams? Deceased loved ones, for example?

In any case, I hope to explore this more in the Physicalism Redux thread with Sci.

Maybe we'll make more progress if we try and look at it from another angle, because this one just doesn't seem to work.

Our language and definitions are perhaps the real problem. I am unsure.

[Laird]

@Valmar,

I think our discussion has run its course. I'll just tie things up with a couple of points:

Firstly, the point of making the distinction between experience of and experience as is to draw out the mistake of taking experience itself to be extended. All experience is experience of, and thus non-extended, given the nature of experience as subjective and qualitative. Even if we infer from experience of to experience as, the experiencer (the "as") is still not the experience (the "of"), so even if we infer an experiencer who is in some way extended, experience still is not.

Secondly, re shared dreams, you miss the point: if they are - as you say they are - entirely subjective experiences, then, like all subjective experiences of a shared reality, they are perspectival. However, the dreamer's perspective is different to that of those who share his/her dream. There must, then, be some sort of translation going on, which makes the dream reality more than just a subjective experience. Anyhow, I hope to draw all of this out better in my discussion with Sci on pluralistic idealism in the Physicalism Redux thread.

There have been some supposed reports of some people who have manifested objects with their minds, but evidence is rare and scarce, sadly. So... it seems possible.

Curious - What cases are you referring to here? Apports by mediums or something else?

@Valmar,

I think our discussion has run its course. I'll just tie things up with a couple of points:

Firstly, the point of making the distinction between experience of and experience as is to draw out the mistake of taking experience itself to be extended. All experience is experience of, and thus non-extended, given the nature of experience as subjective and qualitative. Even if we infer from experience of to experience as, the experiencer (the "as") is still not the experience (the "of"), so even if we infer an experiencer who is in some way extended, experience still is not.

Except that my experiences have shown me quite directly that consciousness can be extended, and that experience of can be equal to experience as.

You seem unable to think outside of the definitions you have enclosed yourself in.

You define your world through definitions and language, allowing it to define experience ~ I define my world through feeling and intuition, allowing it to define the language I use, so as to be able to express my experiences.

That is the fundamental difference I can observe.

Secondly, re shared dreams, you miss the point: if they are - as you say they are - entirely subjective experiences, then, like all subjective experiences of a shared reality, they are perspectival. However, the dreamer's perspective is different to that of those who share his/her dream. There must, then, be some sort of translation going on, which makes the dream reality more than just a subjective experience. Anyhow, I hope to draw all of this out better in my discussion with Sci on pluralistic idealism in the Physicalism Redux thread.

On shared dreams, you yourself are missing the point ~ an experience being subjective does not mean that others cannot be allowed to fully partake of that subjective experience. That is, subjective experience is not private when we're talking mind-to-mind, telepathy or otherwise.

Subjective experience being private only applies to this physical reality where the majority do not have any meaningful telepathic capabilities or any ability to perceive directly into the minds of others.

On a spiritual level, I've learned quite thoroughly through interaction with my loong and tiger spirits that subjective experience fully ceases to be private when each party allows the other to just perceive their mind and nature fully, without boundaries.

Indeed, this is what has allowed me to do such proficient Shadow and energy work ~ my loong spirit is extremely perceptive, able to pull things up that I wasn't aware of, able to notice things in my energies that I could feel but not comprehend.

Curious - What cases are you referring to here? Apports by mediums or something else?

Yeah, apports, I guess. Or by any individual with enough spiritual proficiency.

I think I've made objects disappear by accident... during Ayahuasca one time, I was relaxing in my chair in my bedroom, and I had some things I'd put besides it, between it and the small coffee table I had. Somehow, after the journey, I couldn't find them anywhere. I gave up, despite searching.

A week later, they popped up in the exact spot they'd disappeared, the spot I'd checked again a few times, feeling mad. It was... a little shocking. Never had it happen since, but it got me thinking, that's for sure.

[Laird]

Except that my experiences have shown me quite directly that consciousness can be extended, and that experience of can be equal to experience as.

You haven't been "shown" anything "directly"; rather, you're making inferences. You can't know what lies beyond your experience because all you have is experience, and experience is not the sort of thing that could be extended.

You seem unable to think outside of the definitions you have enclosed yourself in.

No, I simply respect what words mean, and understand that their referents are not arbitrary. Your own record on this is not great: exhibit A; exhibit B.

an experience being subjective does not mean that others cannot be allowed to fully partake of that subjective experience

You're still missing the point, but I've lost interest in explaining it to you.

You haven't been "shown" anything "directly"; rather, you're making inferences. You can't know what lies beyond your experience because all you have is experience, and experience is not the sort of thing that could be extended.

Because that is what you believe. Minds and consciousness are not limited to metaphysical models crafted by someone else. Minds and consciousness are limited only by experience and the mental models that mind or consciousness comprehends or believes to be possible.

So when I say I experienced my mind expanding ~ that's exactly what happened, because that was my experience.

Experience is what defines mental models, after all. Mental models do not define the world proper ~ they only define how the experiencer believes its perception of reality to be.

Can you accept that much?

No, I simply respect what words mean, and understand that their referents are not arbitrary.

And who defines what words mean, and how and why? You only seem to respect your definitions of the words in question, not allowing yourself to consider that perhaps words are merely tools to try and point to something indescribable. Thusly, words are not objective entities in and of themselves ~ they depend entirely on the definitions we subjects give to them, the definitions that we subjects agree upon.

Neither your nor my meanings that we grant to words are the final arbiter of anything.

And my experiences lead me to the difficult task of trying to express them through the limitations of language. But you cannot accept my definitions, and say that they must be wrong because your mental model somehow cannot accept them.

I accept your definitions of these words ~ but only within the context of Substance Dualism.

I cannot accept these definitions when thinking outside of Substance Dualism, as their meanings simply must adapt to the metaphysic in question. Each metaphysic uses the same words but with different definitions, after all.

The tricky task of language, words and definitions.

Your own record on this is not great: exhibit A; exhibit B.

Your examples are also not great, frankly. They're not even particular fair ones.

You're still missing the point, but I've lost interest in explaining it to you.

Well, you're also missing my point, and you don't seem keen to try and find middle ground at all. A little saddening...

[Laird]

@Valmar, to try to finally bring this by now tedious exchange to a conclusion:

As I've already made clear, your experiences do not falsify nor even challenge my metaphysical model.

Nor am I trapped by definitions or whatever you're trying to say I am. I'm simply expressing concepts in language, as we're all doing on this board, including you, and you are doing it no differently than the rest of us. If you didn't know what words meant, then you wouldn't be trying to communicate.

you don't seem keen to try and find middle ground at all.

Let's go back a few posts, then, shall we? Remember when I reminded you of having written that "[idealism, monism and dualism are] not nearly as contrasting as I think you make them out to be. They have a lot of overlap in various ways", and suggested a way in which our different metaphysical models could mostly be harmonised, asking at the end, "Does all of that make sense, and can you accept it?"?

What was your response? To rebuff my attempt at finding harmony: "I can accept that you believe you are correct, but that I disagree".

So don't talk to me about not trying to find a middle ground. I have tried. You've stubbornly resisted.

A little saddening...

Quite.

@Valmar, to try to finally bring this by now tedious exchange to a conclusion:

As I've already made clear, your experiences do not falsify nor even challenge my metaphysical model.

Because you have not had my experiences, hence your mind is unable to conceive of anything outside of your mental model. That would be understandable, however, even then, you refuse to consider that your metaphysical model cannot account for sets of experiences that do not fit neatly into it.

Per my set of spiritual experiences, they poke massive holes in your metaphysical model, because it fails to meaningfully account for them.

Such as my very direct experiences of feeling my mind expanding, my sense of self and awareness following suit, of direct telepathy with my spirit guides, where I am able to fully experience what it is like to be them, to envelope myself in their perspective.

But, because that cannot be possible in your metaphysical model, you simply discount and dismiss it.

Nor am I trapped by definitions or whatever you're trying to say I am. I'm simply expressing concepts in language, as we're all doing on this board, including you, and you are doing it no differently than the rest of us. If you didn't know what words meant, then you wouldn't be trying to communicate.

You are trapped by your definitions, whether you are aware of it or not. I bring it up because that it what I notice ~ you seem to believe that your definitions of words are the correct ones, that others definitions are incorrect.

You do not seem to realize that words have no fixed definitions ~ they have general definitions that shift depending on the person using the word. The fact that we disagree on the definitions of words is a clear example of this. I have my definitions, you have yours, but you cannot accept the definitions I use to try and explain my experiences. I am forced, by necessity, to extend the definitions of words to try and capture an experience that defies description ~ yet I try anyway.

Let's go back a few posts, then, shall we? Remember when I reminded you of having written that "[idealism, monism and dualism are] not nearly as contrasting as I think you make them out to be. They have a lot of overlap in various ways"

I thought that was in the context of explanatory power? Mind bringing up the actual comment?

and suggested a way in which our different metaphysical models could mostly be harmonised, asking at the end, "Does all of that make sense, and can you accept it?"?

You sort of tried, but you refused to accept my replies, because they didn't fit within your definitions.

What was your response? To rebuff my attempt at finding harmony: "I can accept that you believe you are correct, but that I disagree".

So don't talk to me about not trying to find a middle ground. I have tried. You've stubbornly resisted.

You kept trying to redefine my statements, and I felt you kept taking them out of context, but you couldn't accept that. You just went on seeming to not really care about finding a middle ground. You wanted me to accept your definitions, instead of finding actual harmony.

And yet you seem unable to see my perspective, no matter what.

We're at an impasse, so what's the point?

[Laird]

what's the point?

My sentiments exactly. Let's close out this discussion.